Property rights - here we go aaaagain

[wd40]

http://www.freedomtalk.ca/articles1_2012.html#legacy

A must read

[ASRG]

PC MLA Neil Brown is sponsoring this private members bill. Brown has a good record of shepherding these type of bills through the legislature. Often a private members bill is floated to gauge the reaction on what the government obviously wants to do.
Here is the story:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buckle up, boys and girls, especially if you’re one of the thousands of Alberta ranchers and farmers who holds a government grazing lease. The powers that be in Edmonton are flexing their muscles, and many of you will be losing your lease. Following on the heels of Bills 19, 24, 36, and 50, Bill 202 is the Alberta government’s fifth land bill. Its purpose is to set in law a process that invites environmental organizations to sit at the table every time a landholder negotiates a lease or has one renewed. It sets conditions that will compel the government not to renew your lease.

Bill 202 assumes government employees are better stewards of grazing land than leaseholders, despite the fact that much of this land is teeming with wildlife precisely because leaseholders have been terrific stewards at zero cost to the taxpayer.Prior to the last election, the Alberta government brought forward four pieces of legislation—Bills 19, 24, 36, and 50—each of which was designed to restrict or eliminate property rights. Bill 19, as originally drafted, literally gave a Cabinet Minister the power to manage privately-owned land for extended periods, up to thirty years or more, if the government thought it might want the property at some far off future date.

Bill 24 transferred ownership of underground pore spaces from title holders to the government, including from those individuals and businesses that own, control, and manage their own mineral rights. (Pore spaces, like the holes in a sponge, are underground storage spaces that landowners in other parts of the country lease to utility companies for around $115 or more per acre per year.)

Bill 36 means Cabinet can unilaterally and with no justifiable reason rescind oil sands leases, CFO (Confined Feeding Operation) approvals, water licenses, timber harvest agreements, gravel permits, and numerous other government licenses or contracts issued as a result of a legal statute. Regardless of how many thousands or millions a leaseholder or landowner might have invested and lost due to the government’s action, under Bill 36, no one can take the government to court for breaking a contract or rescinding a license/lease unless the government grants permission.

Now Bill 202 is coming. Bill 202 states that before any grazing lease can be issued or renewed, the Minister must conduct an environmental assessment. If any “significant” wildlife is found, Section 82.4(1) says the grazing lease cannot be issued or renewed. The bureaucracy itself, with help from environmental organizations, will determine what “significant” means. It could mean a family of deer, a couple of hawks, maybe even a passel of gophers.

If a grazing lease is to be renewed or issued, the Minister must issue a public notice, providing environmental organizations in the province with the opportunity to object to your lease or to insist that terms and restrictions be imposed. In effect, 202 is designed to politicize the leasing process permanently. It will very likely require leaseholders and potential leaseholders to spend big dough on legal fees to defend their interests.

The flaw in 202 is it assumes government employees are better stewards of grazing land than leaseholders, despite the fact that much of this grazing land is teeming with wildlife precisely because leaseholders, for multiple generations, have been terrific stewards at zero cost to the taxpayer. Now 202 wants to change that by adding more government employees and higher taxpayer costs. The Bill was introduced this spring. Indications are that it will be followed up on in the fall legislative session

[wilagro]

Yes, Putin style government is a reality in Alberta. That's what you get for over forty years of electing the PCers. Our new Premier is not a wit smarter than the last two or three so don't expect any help there.

The environment is important to all Albertans but it is only one factor and shouldn't be the sole or pivotal deciding consideration in the leasing of public lands. Especially so when responsible land tenure in the past has preserved and protected wildlife for eons.

[per]

Wilagro you are right on except unfortunately our new Premier is considerably smarter than her predecessors. That makes our plight acutely more difficult.

[smcgrath76]

We operate on some crown lease as part
of our operation and see the risks
increasing all the time. This is a
factor with deeded land that is often
overlooked. I think one of the key
arguments that people forget is that
there are some quality people in public
lands who work with producers and often
share the same goals as the lessee or
bridge the public and personal goal gaps
and provide oversight on behalf of the
public and the province. Any we have
dealt with are both skilled at
environmental assessment and reasonable
as long as you demonstrate that you are
taking care of the resource to the best
of your ability.

[Kathy]

Link to Bill:

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_28/session_1/20120523_bill-202.pdf

I note that this bill is illegal, as the majority in the past have been - where-in quote the "Minister of... this department or that department" submits the bill ----- Usually the actual name of the minister isn't even stated OR the bill is submitted with his/her MINISTER title... an illegal format.

This Bill 202 (why not Bill 2) is submitted by an unknown individual aka "Dr. Brown"... where-in this bill can only be legally submitted to the Legislature by a sitting MLA -- therefore page one should read "Neil Brown, MLA for Calgary-Mackay-Nose Hill". In reality, who the hell is "Dr. Brown"?

I note, that Dr. Brown is a Q.C. meaning member of the Queen's Counsel. His bio can be read at:
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=mla_bio&rnumber=19&leg=28

This bill passed first reading on May 31, 2012. Dr. Neil Brown was placed on the standing committees for: "Private Bills" (May 24/12) and "Resource Stewardship" (May 28/12). Does anybody really believe that this "agenda" (21) isn't going full steam ahead?

[Kathy]

Link to Bill:

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_28/session_1/20120523_bill-202.pdf

I note that this bill is illegal, as the majority in the past have been - where-in quote the "Minister of... this department or that department" submits the bill ----- Usually the actual name of the minister isn't even stated OR the bill is submitted with his/her MINISTER title... an illegal format.

This Bill 202 (why not Bill 2) is submitted by an unknown individual aka "Dr. Brown"... where-in this bill can only be legally submitted to the Legislature by a sitting MLA -- therefore page one should read "Neil Brown, MLA for Calgary-Mackay-Nose Hill". In reality, who the hell is "Dr. Brown"?

I note, that Dr. Brown is a Q.C. meaning member of the Queen's Counsel. His bio can be read at:
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=mla_bio&rnumber=19&leg=28

This bill passed first reading on May 31, 2012. Dr. Neil Brown was placed on the standing committees for: "Private Bills" (May 24/12) and "Resource Stewardship" (May 28/12). Does anybody really believe that this "agenda" (21) isn't going full steam ahead?

[Kathy]

Link to Bill:

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_28/session_1/20120523_bill-202.pdf

I note that this bill is illegal, as the majority in the past have been - where-in quote the "Minister of... this department or that department" submits the bill ----- Usually the actual name of the minister isn't even stated OR the bill is submitted with his/her MINISTER title... an illegal format.

This Bill 202 (why not Bill 2) is submitted by an unknown individual aka "Dr. Brown"... where-in this bill can only be legally submitted to the Legislature by a sitting MLA -- therefore page one should read "Neil Brown, MLA for Calgary-Mackay-Nose Hill". In reality, who the hell is "Dr. Brown"?

I note, that Dr. Brown is a Q.C. meaning member of the Queen's Counsel. His bio can be read at:
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=mla_bio&rnumber=19&leg=28

This bill passed first reading on May 31, 2012. Dr. Neil Brown was placed on the standing committees for: "Private Bills" (May 24/12) and "Resource Stewardship" (May 28/12). Does anybody really believe that this "agenda" (21) isn't going full steam ahead?

[Kathy]

Link to Bill:

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_28/session_1/20120523_bill-202.pdf

I note that this bill is illegal, as the majority in the past have been - where-in quote the "Minister of... this department or that department" submits the bill ----- Usually the actual name of the minister isn't even stated OR the bill is submitted with his/her MINISTER title... an illegal format.

This Bill 202 (why not Bill 2) is submitted by an unknown individual aka "Dr. Brown"... where-in this bill can only be legally submitted to the Legislature by a sitting MLA -- therefore page one should read "Neil Brown, MLA for Calgary-Mackay-Nose Hill". In reality, who the hell is "Dr. Brown"?

I note, that Dr. Brown is a Q.C. meaning member of the Queen's Counsel. His bio can be read at:
http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=mla_bio&rnumber=19&leg=28

This bill passed first reading on May 31, 2012. Dr. Neil Brown was placed on the standing committees for: "Private Bills" (May 24/12) and "Resource Stewardship" (May 28/12). Does anybody really believe that this "agenda" (21) isn't going full steam ahead?

[Horse]

You welfare cowboys have no one but yourselves to blame. You bitch and complain all the time when you are getting $100 mil or more per yr of taxpayers money for the pultry sum of app $4mil rent and land taxes. Just how long do you expect this gravey train to go on. Mabey if you paid a fair rent the gov wouldnt be set on getting it back.
I for one will be rooting all the way for the gov.

[grassfarmer]

A rather predictable, if short sighted response Horse.
If you cheer this crowd on in this issue you are
cheering them on on the other property theft bills
which affect all ranchers on private, rented or lease
land. Before you get going on me I don't graze any
lease land.

[smcgrath76]

Horse - crown lease comes up for sale all
the time. If you desperately want some it
is available. I think the bigger issue is
where property right issues are heading.

[Happytrails]

Right on (all but one). I think that one question we can put to the government is exactly what in the H--- they intend to do with the land that they won't lease out. A the present we lessees pay taxes and rent, build and repair fences, develop stock watering sites, put out the prairie fires and keep the range from getting into an overgrown condition. The land is generating more revenue than the administration is costing. If the government were to take on the tasks that we are currently doing and then rent at private rates I'm sure they would have less money in the end. Also I'm betting that the ranchers are looking after the land better than whoever the government could hire to do it.

Reason is on our side but that might not mean much in the end. The last election showed that the citiots will support politicians who promise to keep us country folk subordinate. I don't know if the "if you eat you are involved in agriculture" message can get through strong enough to get them listening to us. Lets give it our best. HT

[per]

smcgrath, although I totally agree with your assessment of many in public lands, they are at a crossroads right now. New Director with the very nice and capable Keith Lyseng retiring, a move of SRD to Environment and the soon to be retirement of SRD DM Morris S. A bit of disarray going on.

[ASRG]

Horse: You are missing the point entirely.
Crown leases are real property and the leasee has real property rights. Taking real property through legislative regulation is a violation of those property rights.

There is a growing trend by this Alberta government to take private property, without compensation or access to the courts. Today they take Crown grazing leases.......tommorrow they take your farm, your house, your car!

If you think that could never happen, please read the UN "Agenda 21"? It's real, Canada has signed on to it......one of the main goals is to eliminate private property.....your property!